list_docsLists documentation page IDs and titles, optionally filtered by section or language, to help locate relevant Open Play developer docs.
Lists documentation page ids and titles, optionally for one section (getting-started, auth, sdk, guides, realtime, plugins, reference, operations, panel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Documentation language: "en" (default) or "tr" (the Turkish source). | en |
| section | No | Only this section. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape at a high level (ids and titles only, not page bodies), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether the listing is complete across all sections.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core behavior first and the optional filter second. The parenthetical list of all nine section values duplicates the schema enum and is the one element that does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the filterable dimension, and the shape of the returned data. Ordering and pagination behavior are the main omissions, but they are minor for a simple index tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's enumeration of section values simply repeats the enum. The 'lang' parameter is never mentioned in the description at all, though the schema covers it adequately, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists documentation page ids and titles') and adds the scope qualifier of an optional section filter, so the agent knows this is a lightweight index rather than a content fetch. It does not name the sibling search_docs or read_doc, so differentiation must be inferred from the word 'ids and titles'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'optionally for one section' suggests browsing or enumerating pages, which contrasts implicitly with searching (search_docs) and reading (read_doc). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on choosing between listing and searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.